Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY) Q4 FY25 earnings call: guidance and Q&A

With numerous Phase III pivotal catalysts in 2026, which areas (CELMoDs, milvexian, admilparant) offer the most upside, and how should investors position for these readouts?

Management highlighted the strong growth of current products and the upcoming 10+ pivotal readouts in 2026. They expressed high confidence in the CELMoD program (iberdomide, mezigdomide, arlo-cel in myeloma), admilparant in IPF/PPF (citing strong Phase II FVC reduction data), and milvexian (potential best-in-class in SSP and unique Factor XI in AFib).

“The things that I think stand out for me, you've already mentioned them actually. The CELMoD program is beginning to bear fruit. We've already demonstrated PFS data for iberdomide. We'll see follow-up data on that with PFS this year.”

asked by Seamus Fernandez · answered by Christopher Boerner

What are the drivers for Eliquis growth in 2026, and is BMS's BD focus on deepening existing therapeutic areas or expanding into new ones, potentially waiting for pipeline readouts?

Adam Lenkowsky explained Eliquis growth is driven by its ~75% NRx share in the U.S. and a reevaluated pricing strategy, including IRA changes (Medicare Part D liability removal, $0 Medicaid, 40% WACC reduction). Chris Boerner stated BD remains a top priority, focusing on building depth in existing TAs where BMS has scientific and commercial expertise, rather than chasing deals or waiting for specific readouts.

“We're in a very strong position, as you alluded to, with the late-stage pipeline. We don't need to chase deals. That said, we're going to continue to be looking out for opportunities to add strength and depth to our portfolio.”

asked by Chris Schott · answered by Christopher Boerner

Can you elaborate on the nature of cost savings planned for 2026 and the drivers behind the projected $1.5 billion to $2 billion step-down in Eliquis sales from 2026 to 2027?

David Elkins confirmed solid line of sight for an additional $1 billion in cost savings over 2026-2027, enabling reinvestment in growth drivers. Adam Lenkowsky and David Elkins clarified the 2026-2027 Eliquis step-down is primarily due to anticipated generic entries in major EU markets, where patents largely expire in late 2026, leading to rapid and steep declines similar to other small molecules outside the U.S.

“If you remember back in August 2024, when the IRA came out, there's a lot of questions about what that impact was. So we provided guidance at that point in time. We thought it was important just to update you on that '27.”

asked by Courtney Breen · answered by David Elkins

Given the toxicity of existing therapies, what does it take for a new therapy like admilparant to become a new standard of care, either as monotherapy or in combination?

Adam Lenkowsky emphasized the significant unmet need in IPF/PPF due to poor prognosis and high treatment abandonment rates. He highlighted admilparant's potential as a first-in-class product to redefine care with improved efficacy (slowing/halting progression) and a better tolerability profile, specifically low rates of GI issues compared to older and newer therapies. He expects it to be used both as monotherapy and in combination.

“What we're excited about with admilparant, which is our LPA1 is that this is a potential first-in-class product that we believe could redefine the standard of care in pulmonary fibrosis, offering improved efficacy and improved tolerability profile.”

asked by Mohit Bansal · answered by Adam Lenkowsky

What would be a clinically meaningful delta for milvexian in AFib versus Eliquis to support broader payer coverage, and what is the expected year-over-year growth for the growth portfolio?

Cristian Massacesi stated the primary endpoint for milvexian AFib is non-inferiority on efficacy versus Eliquis, followed by testing for superiority in bleeding. Adam Lenkowsky added that a differentiated bleeding profile would drive demand, especially among the ~40% of patients who are undertreated due to fear of bleeding, and that payers recognize the economic benefit of avoiding bleeding events. David Elkins confirmed the growth portfolio is expected to achieve mid-single-digit growth.

“Fear of bleeding continues to be the main reason why clinicians hold back from using Factor Xs in more patients. Roughly 40% of patients remain either untreated or undertreated, leaving them at risk for a stroke.”

asked by Terence Flynn · answered by Adam Lenkowsky

Why was the milvexian SSP trial not enriched for atherosclerosis, and how will CELMoDs be positioned in the increasingly complex second-line plus refractory multiple myeloma space, considering bispecifics?

Cristian Massacesi clarified that while some eligibility criteria may differ, the milvexian SSP study's patient population is very similar to Bayer's, with controlled lacunar events, giving confidence in the study design. Adam Lenkowsky positioned CELMoDs (iberdomide, mezigdomide) as foundational in multiple myeloma, aiming to replace IMiDs in earlier lines (2nd line, largely in the community setting) due to their high potency, manageable toxicity, and oral convenience, serving as future partners for TCEs and cell therapy.

“Our goal is to make both, iber and mezi foundational in multiple myeloma, replacing IMiDs in earlier lines of treatment.”

asked by Jason Gerberry · answered by Adam Lenkowsky

What dynamics are contributing to Opdualag's strong growth, and how much growth room remains for Reblozyl in its current indications?

Adam Lenkowsky stated Opdualag is a standard of care in first-line metastatic melanoma with over 30% market share, and BMS's total share is over 65%. Growth will come from converting the remaining 15% on PD-1 monotherapy and international launches. For Reblozyl, strong growth is expected, particularly in RS-negative patients in the U.S. and from international first-line launches, building on its over $2 billion annualized sales.

“Opdualag is now approaching 4 years post launch and has over 30% market share. In fact, when you look at the totality of BMS market share in metastatic melanoma, we're now over 65%.”

asked by Malcolm Hoffman · answered by Adam Lenkowsky